Ensemble Ensemble
Menu
Home
  • SOLUTIONS
  • Method
    • A Systemic Approach
    • Theory of Constraints
    • Working with us
  • RESOURCES
    • Productivity Scorecard
    • Articles
    • Subscribe
    • Our book
  • Results
  • ABOUT
    • The Just Work Manifesto
    • Our Story
    • Location
Book a call
loader

Culture | Language | Organisation | People | Strategy

View all articles SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSLETTER to get articles and more

STAY CONNECTED AND SIGNUP TO RECEIVE INSIGHT updates

Subscribe

The Discipline of Learning

David Hodes, Founder

I had occasion recently to reflect on the fact that it is now more than twenty years since I first read Peter Senge’s seminal book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organisation. All those years ago, I was at the National Productivity Institute in Pretoria looking for a breakthrough in work management.

The refrigeration contracting company I led was staring at a completely oversubscribed order book and we had to find a more productive way to do our work. The story began with them giving me in one hand a copy of Eli Goldratt’s The Goal, and in the other, a copy of The Fifth Discipline.

[Listen to audio version, read by David Hodes]

Whilst The Goal was of more immediate relevance, The Fifth Discipline occupies a place in my practice that calls to mind TS Eliot’s famous words: ‘We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.’ What is the essence of what I have learned about Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Team Learning, Shared Vision and Systems Thinking in an exploration of organisational learning which I started more than two decades ago?

Firstly, the idea that organisations learn is a misnomer. People within organisations learn. Good managerial leaders create the conditions in which it is safe to learn. There is tremendous anxiety associated with learning. You will have to face into the fact that you don’t know enough, that you will feel exposed and ashamed in front of your peers, bosses and subordinates, and that you will have to yield the existing source of your power to try and gain mastery over new knowledge, processes and systems. But the alternate to stepping into the unknown and to learn how to master it is to gradually shrink away from what is meaningful, to become increasingly stale, bored and disillusioned, and ultimately to become disposable.

Personal Mastery

All learning starts with the self, and the wisdom contained in the Ethics of the Fathers:’If I am not for myself, who is? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?’ At first reading, that first question reads as if one has to be selfish. But how can we be effective for anyone else if we have not mastered ourselves? Standing on two legs, with eyes that face forward, we are creatures who are physically and psychologically built for moving toward a goal. Where are you going? What is your vision for yourself and the purpose by which you live your life?

“If I am not for myself, who is?
If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?”

It took me the longest time to get really clear about the ‘why’ of what I do, but once I was able to get it down in words, every other decision I made has been framed with Just Work in mind – bringing into the daily workplace the Golden Rule of ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.

For the second part of the aphorism, I have learned the value of transcending the locus of self in service of something which can make a difference for others. It is the essence of everything heroic in the world. It is never easy to recognise in the moment the arousal of the ego, with its companion siren song of hubris. But if personal mastery doesn’t mean being self-aware enough in the moment to halt the mind’s stampede to self-serving aggrandisement, then it means nothing at all.

And finally, personal mastery is about being deeply present in each moment. I have come to learn that the true meaning of eternity is not ‘a very long time in the future’, but rather connotes the most intense concentration of the present you can experience. The past is but a story and, in the words of Yogi Berra, ‘the future ain’t what it used to be’. So, in pursuit of personal mastery, how intensely can you cultivate the only thing that is real in this world: this present moment? For me, the ultimate result of personal mastery is enlightenment, equanimity and peace—an evolution of us human beings, one at a time, over a lifetime, to our highest form of development. A work in progress.

Shared Vision

Truly great shared visions can align a vast number of people in pursuit of a common goal. Kennedy gives his vision of sending a man to the moon and bringing him back safely to earth. Martin Luther King Jr had a Dream that people would not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. The book of Proverbs tells us that ‘without vision, people perish’. So, what have I learned about the importance of having a shared vision and how to go about creating one? At a minimum, I have learned that my most important and successful assignments have always been propelled and galvanised by shared vision.

To provide energy that overcomes the inevitable dips, to have people subordinate their personal preferences in favour of the broader good, there must be a compelling aligning narrative. People on the team must feel they are contributing to, and have agency in, the unfolding of the story. You and they must create a universe big enough to accommodate each and every personal vision. As important as the strategy may be, or the calculus of the options, nothing has the power to move people to greatness than being actively engaged in what will eventually become the myths and legends of how you got from the present moment to that shining light on the hill.

You can tell people how the future’s going to be, or you can sell them the sizzle of what it looks like. You can test the vision on them or you can consult with them to gauge how they respond. But, if you want to enrol them for the long haul, you’re best co-creating the vision with them. It means spending time, lots of it, giving detailed expression to what the future will be like. Rendering it in as rich a detail as possible. Standing in the imagination in that future time and place as if the vision had already been accomplished, then collectively learning from that future into which you all wish to live. Learning how to be the change you wish to see and what needs to be done to get there.

Mental Models

We all carry representations in our minds of the world around us. Those representations are the map, not the territory—the mental model, not the reality. It is humbling to take the time to think of that for a moment. There is no way any of us, even the best and brightest, are capable of making our representations of that which we observe to become the thing itself.

When we apprehend a phenomenon through sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing, motion and balance, energy, emotion or thought, we can only ever hope to convey a model of what we have apprehended to another, or a group of others. We cannot convey the thing itself. We use culturally bound means of giving expression to the observed phenomenon, whether through science or art, and the best we can hope for is that there is sufficient overlap of understanding to productively use the knowledge generated.

Often in his lectures, Senge will talk about how we are not recording devices, and so have no means of giving an objectively truthful reflection of what we have experienced. Or, as the British statistician George Box put it: ‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’. As creatures capable of high levels of cognitive ability, we seem to have earned this gift with its counterweight problem of cognitive bias.

So, I have learned that one should be humble when trying to articulate what the ‘truth’ is of any given situation. Use the benefit of personal mastery to not be attached to how you wish the world was, and instead be open to discovering afresh a closer truth of how it actually is. Every step we take into the territory of the unknown delivers us new knowledge as we conquer its mysteries. But there is always far more to be discovered than even the gargantuan troves of knowledge we have uncovered to date. I believe that the more we come to know and describe in our mental models, the more there is to know.

Team Learning

Too often I have seen people engage in discussions whose sole purpose is to destroy the argument of the other and emerge as the victor to reap the spoils. This inability to listen breeds either resentment or a learned passivity, often aggressive in its nature. You are then forced to be on your guard as the jousting continues and the bitter memory of the ‘win-lose’ becomes a toxic marinade for future tournaments. At worst, the culture becomes full of rancour and at best the winner becomes the lone genius who has to do all the thinking. No one feels safe to express an opposing view and the organisation loses out on the collective wisdom of all whose livelihood depends on it.

I have thus come to learn that the essence of team learning resides in the ability to listen. That is, to get out of the voice in your head which is constantly judging you and the person or people with whom you are in conversation, and to metaphorically step into their shoes with an open and generous heart. As already mentioned, we all have our own mental models to make sense of what we see happening in our world. Suspending your point of view for long enough to reflect on what your interlocutor is saying will inevitably provide you with fresh insights on your toughest challenges. Equipped with these insights and the growth of trust which arises from deep listening, the likelihood of generative dialogue is substantially enhanced. Powerful new solutions to seemingly intractable problems often arise from generative dialogue—the heart of team learning.

“If you think learning’s expensive, try ignorance.”

Learning how to learn together is an art form based on an understanding of what it takes to share success and failure, and to overcome judgement, cynicism and fear. No doubt the price to pay for team learning is an appreciation of the value of vulnerability—being courageous enough to speak your truth, no matter how incorrect or stupid it may seem. The only way we come to upgrade and improve our mental models is when we can speak freely and then listen in to what others contribute to refuting or confirming our ideas. As Jordan Peterson put it in rule 9 of his bestseller 12 Rules For Life: ‘Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t’.

Systems Thinking

Over the years since I first came to understand Senge’s final discipline, I have distilled my thoughts into two major parts. Goldratt’s genius provides us with an operational means of taming the complexity of what I call non-living systems—the world of mechanics and Newton’s laws of motion. Non-living systems such as trains, software programs and excavators work according to deterministic patterns and when they are broken, they can be fixed or replaced. Living systems on the other hand are complex and adaptive.

When a part of a living system starts to malfunction, the rest of the system adapts to the change and either corrects the malfunction or it evolves into a new form. Non-living systems are always a part of the broader living systems. The train exists within a much broader system of the cities, towns and villages it serves: the passengers, the drivers, the controllers, the signalmen, the ticket office, the financiers, the regulators, and not to mention the operators of the electricity grid by which its engines, lighting and air-conditioning are powered. The list could go on ad infinitum, for example, to the miners who dig the iron ore to feed into the steel mills which make the rails.

All these ‘systems within systems’ weave a web of interdependency which I believe lies at the heart of The Fifth Discipline. I am often amused and sometimes terrified by those who think they have the answer to the most intractable problems of our age and don’t include in their thinking any kind of appreciation for their role in the system of which they are a part.

Climate change becomes a climate crisis and the protestors go in their Prius cars to protest a new coal mine being built. With the best of intentions, they ignore the fact that the steel from the car came from intensive use of energy in mining the iron and the metallurgical coal, shipping it over oceans, putting it through smelters and then proceeding through every step of the manufacturing and distribution process.

The fuel they use in their car to get to the protest came from the fossil fuel source of energy they protest about. The roads they drive on were built in part on the taxes raised from these mining activities, as was the education which provided them with the knowledge of just how to articulate their protest. The social network they belong to, which was key to them being able to organise the protest, relies on server farms which chew huge amounts of electricity, mostly generated by fossil fuels. The computers they use depend on mining and manufacturing which themselves depend on reliable sources of the electricity generated from the coal they have come to demonstrate against.

“If you’re not part of the problem,
you can’t be part of the solution.”

Within the same earth system of our hominid home, however, are those who deny there is a problem. They assume that we can continue over-using our finite planetary resources without any significant consequence. People who refuse to properly recognise the price of environmental damage and are blind to the system archetype of the tragedy of the commons. As Senge put it, when you think about our good earth as a system, ‘there’s no out there, out there’.

I have adopted an axiom of system thinking which I think we would all be better off considering before assuming that simplistic solutions can solve deeply systemic problems: ‘If you’re not part of the problem, you can’t be part of the solution’.

In my more than twenty years of thinking about The Fifth Discipline and how we learn in organisations, I am more convinced than ever that we need mastery in all four of the other disciplines: personal mastery, shared vision, mental models and team learning to become increasingly effective systems thinkers and realise that we’re all in this together. It may be the only chance we have, because if you think learning’s expensive, try ignorance.

____________________________

What’s next?

The change from standard thinking to Theory of Constraints (TOC) is both profound and exhilarating. To make it both fun and memorable, we use a business simulation we call The Right Stuff Workshop.

We’d love to run it with you. To learn more:

  • download the brochure (no email required)
  • schedule a call
    ____________________________

    My own book, More Than Just Work, distils my thinking about three decades of managing work. It’s edited and proofed—and looks gorgeous—but my editor and I are calling it the ‘advanced reader’s copy’. Soon, I’ll incorporate a few suggestions from some early trusted readers and make some changes based on new ideas I’m discovering.

    You can buy my book (with free shipping anywhere in Australia). If you do so now, I’ll send you the next edition for FREE later this year, bundled with the ebook and audiobook versions.
    ____________________________

    Cathedral of learning
    [Background photo by Patrick Robert Doyle on Unsplash]

    “Small changes can produce big results—but the areas 

    of highest leverage are often the least obvious.”
    —Peter Senge

    ____________________________

  • Culture
  • Operations
  • Process
  • Strategy

The healthcare professional: the hidden constraint in patient flow

Ensemble Administrator

Healthcare professionals are central to the patient’s progress from awareness of a therapy to successful long-term use. They identify risk, interpret evidence, diagnose conditions, discuss options, perform procedures, provide training and monitor outcomes.

Yet many medical device development programs treat healthcare professionals primarily as users to be trained or customers to be persuaded.

HCP-Centered Design takes a wider view. It examines the work healthcare professionals must perform, the system in which they perform it and the constraints that limit their ability to move suitable patients through the care pathway.

“If patient flow depends on a healthcare professional, that professional’s available capacity may determine how many patients ultimately receive the therapy.”

Healthcare professionals govern critical transitions

A medical device patient journey commonly depends on several healthcare professionals:

  • A primary care professional recognizes a problem or makes a referral.
  • A specialist assesses the patient and manages the disease pathway.
  • Diagnostic professionals generate and interpret evidence.
  • A managing physician supports authorization or reimbursement.
  • An interventional specialist confirms eligibility and performs a procedure.
  • Nurses, educators or allied health professionals help the patient adapt.
  • Follow-up teams monitor efficacy and coordinate adjustments.

Each professional governs a transition in the flow of patients.

If one transition lacks sufficient capacity, information or clarity, the whole pathway slows. More marketing, sales activity or production capacity will not compensate for a shortage of specialist time or a burdensome diagnostic process.

This is why HCP-Centered Design is not simply about making an interface easier to use. It is about enabling the system of care to perform.

The HCP works within a system

A healthcare professional’s work depends on information and actions supplied by others. They may rely on referrals, patient histories, pathology, imaging, electronic records, clinical guidelines and the availability of equipment or trained colleagues.

After reaching a decision, they may need to explain it, document it, arrange authorization, coordinate treatment and prepare the next person in the pathway.

A technically strong solution can still create difficulty if it:

  • Requires information that is hard to obtain
  • Interrupts established clinical workflows
  • Produces outputs that are difficult to interpret
  • Adds documentation without removing other work
  • Fails to connect with existing systems
  • Demands training that cannot be sustained
  • Transfers work or risk to another professional
  • Provides a result without clarifying the next action

The relevant design question is not merely, “Can the HCP use this product?”

It is, “Does this solution improve the HCP’s ability to complete important clinical work within the conditions in which care is actually delivered?”

Identify the real healthcare professional personas

“HCP” is not one persona.

A general practitioner, specialist, interventional physician, nurse, technician and clinical administrator encounter different stages of the pathway. Each has different responsibilities, authority, expertise and exposure to risk.

Even within a profession, context matters. An experienced specialist in a major hospital may approach the same task differently from a professional who encounters the condition infrequently or works without immediate specialist support.

Useful HCP personas distinguish factors that influence work:

  • Clinical responsibility and decision authority
  • Frequency of encountering the condition
  • Experience with the procedure or technology
  • Access to information and specialist support
  • Available time
  • Confidence in interpreting results
  • Responsibility for follow-up
  • Exposure to clinical, legal or financial risk

These personas clarify who performs each job and what support each person requires.

Map the HCP journey

The HCP journey often begins before the visible clinical procedure.

It may include receiving a referral, gathering information, forming an initial view, ordering investigations, interpreting results, deciding whether the patient is eligible, discussing treatment, obtaining authorization, preparing for the procedure, delivering care and arranging follow-up.

At each stage, ask:

  • What is the HCP trying to accomplish?
  • What information is required?
  • Where does the information come from?
  • What decision must be made?
  • What could cause delay or rework?
  • Who depends on this action?
  • What must happen before the patient can progress?

The resulting journey map should distinguish processing time from waiting time. A decision may require only minutes of specialist attention while patients wait weeks to access that attention.

This reveals the practical relationship between HCP capacity and patient flow.

Find the HCP constraint

The Theory of Constraints directs attention to the factor limiting the performance of the entire system.

In some pathways, the constraint may be the number of qualified interventional specialists. In others, it may be diagnostic capacity, physician confidence, authorization effort, operating room access or the time required to train patients.

The constraint may also be hidden inside the HCP’s working day.

A specialist supporting a therapy must still manage other clinical duties, administration, meetings, documentation and urgent cases. The question is not simply how many specialists exist. It is how much of their usable capacity is available for the activities upon which patient flow depends.

“The scarcest resource may not be the healthcare professional. It may be the few hours of focused capacity available for the critical work.”

Improvement away from this constraint can make performance worse. Sending more referrals to an already overloaded specialist increases the queue. Adding information may increase cognitive burden. Creating another approval may consume the capacity required to treat patients.

HCP-Centered Design seeks to protect and expand the capacity that governs flow.

Go to the clinical Gemba

Policies and procedures describe how clinical work should happen. Observation reveals how it actually happens.

Healthcare professionals routinely compensate for missing information, awkward interfaces and unreliable handovers. These workarounds may become so familiar that nobody reports them as problems.

Gemba research should examine:

  • How the HCP prepares
  • Which tools and information sources are used
  • What interrupts the work
  • Where the HCP waits or repeats activity
  • How uncertainty is communicated
  • What must be documented
  • How work passes to the next person
  • How the HCP recognizes that the job is complete

The purpose is not to judge the healthcare professional. It is to understand the system surrounding the work.

“A workaround is often evidence that the system has failed to support the person doing the work.”

Define the HCP’s job to be done

Healthcare professionals do not simply use devices. They use them to make progress in clinical work.

An HCP may need to identify risk, reach a confident diagnosis, select an intervention, perform a procedure safely, explain options, monitor progress or recognize deterioration.

A structured job map divides this work into eight stages:

  1. Define the intended clinical outcome.
  2. Locate the necessary information and resources.
  3. Prepare the patient, equipment and environment.
  4. Confirm readiness and choose between alternatives.
  5. Execute the clinical activity.
  6. Monitor its progress and results.
  7. Modify the approach when circumstances change.
  8. Conclude, document and prepare for subsequent care.

This wider view prevents the product team from concentrating exclusively on the procedure.

The greatest value may come from reducing preparation, improving decision confidence, clarifying an exception, simplifying documentation or improving the handover to follow-up care.

Convert experience into measurable outcomes

Comments such as “the interface is difficult” or “we need better information” indicate dissatisfaction, but do not provide sufficient direction for design.

They should be translated into measurable outcome statements, such as:

“Minimize the time required to identify which clinical information is missing before making a treatment decision.”

Or:

“Reduce the likelihood that a clinically significant change goes unrecognized between scheduled reviews.”

A broader population of healthcare professionals can then assess the importance of each outcome and their satisfaction with their current ability to achieve it.

Highly important and poorly satisfied outcomes provide a rational basis for prioritizing innovation.

“Adoption follows when a solution makes important clinical work safer, clearer or easier to complete.”

Apply FOCUS to HCP capacity

The five-step FOCUS process creates a practical improvement cycle.

Find the constraint. Determine which HCP activity or resource currently limits patient flow.

Optimise for it. Protect the constraint from avoidable work, missing information, interruptions and rework.

Collaborate around it. Align upstream and downstream teams so patients, information and resources arrive when required.

Uplift it. Add capacity, redesign responsibilities, improve technology or remove restrictive policies.

Start Again. Identify the new constraint once flow improves.

This approach allows the organization to distinguish activity from value. It also turns HCP engagement into an ongoing management discipline.

Connect HCP evidence with enterprise execution

HCP-Centered Design must connect clinical reality with patient needs, technology, regulation and business strategy.

A Value Management Office can help coordinate these perspectives across the product lifecycle. Its role is to ensure that projects, resources and stage-gate decisions remain connected to patient flow and business value.

The organization should be able to show:

  • Which HCP groups influence the pathway
  • What each group is trying to accomplish
  • How the work happens in practice
  • Which outcomes remain poorly served
  • Where HCP capacity constrains patient flow
  • How the proposed solution changes the wider care system
  • How improvement will be measured

The goal is not simply a device that healthcare professionals can operate. It is a solution they can confidently incorporate into care and a delivery system capable of getting that solution to more patients.


What’s next?

Use the HCP-Centered Design assessment to determine how well your organization understands clinical work, HCP capacity and the constraints governing patient flow.

The resulting evidence should guide product design, process improvement and investment toward better products, delivered faster, with more lives changed for good.

READ MORE

  • Operations
  • People
  • Process
  • Strategy

Patient flow: the missing system in Patient Centered Design

Ensemble Administrator

Medical device companies devote enormous skill and investment to developing safe, effective products. Yet a technically successful device changes no lives while suitable patients remain unable to reach it.

Between a patient becoming aware of a therapy and receiving its intended benefit lies a pathway of referrals, consultations, diagnostics, approvals, procedures, training and follow-up. Every step consumes time. Between the steps, patients wait. At some points, they become confused, discouraged, ineligible or lost to the process.

Patient Centered Design must therefore address more than the design of the device. It must improve the performance of the entire system through which patients reach, receive and live successfully with the solution.

“A life-changing therapy changes no lives while patients remain trapped in the pathway leading to it.”

The patient journey is a flow system

A typical medical device journey may include:

  1. The patient becomes aware of a possible therapy.
  2. A primary care professional or specialist assesses the patient.
  3. Diagnostic work determines whether the therapy is appropriate.
  4. The patient secures authorization or reimbursement.
  5. An interventional specialist confirms and plans the procedure.
  6. The patient receives the device or therapy.
  7. The patient learns how to live with the solution.
  8. Follow-up identifies any necessary adjustments.
  9. Periodic reviews monitor longer-term efficacy.

Companies often manage these stages as separate functions. Marketing works on awareness. Medical affairs supports clinicians. Market access addresses reimbursement. Sales works with specialists. Clinical teams gather evidence. Training teams support adoption.

The patient, however, experiences one journey.

From the patient’s perspective, a delay between two organizational functions remains a delay. A repeated test remains repeated work. An unclear handover creates uncertainty regardless of which department owns it.

Patient Centered Design begins when the organization sees and manages this journey as a connected system.

Processing time tells only part of the story

Every step contains some necessary processing time. A consultation takes time. A diagnostic test takes time. An authorization must be assessed. A procedure must be performed.

The patient’s total lead time, however, also includes the waiting between these activities.

A consultation may take 30 minutes, but the patient could wait six weeks for it. A diagnostic test may take an hour, followed by another delay before a specialist reviews the result. Prior authorization may require little actual work while adding weeks to the pathway.

This distinction matters because organizations often improve processing time while leaving the larger queues untouched. Saving five minutes during an appointment produces little benefit if the patient waits months to reach it.

Patient Centered Design therefore asks:

  • How long does each activity take?
  • How long do patients wait between activities?
  • How many suitable patients enter each stage?
  • How many progress to the next stage?
  • Where and why do patients leave the pathway?
  • How much total time passes before the patient receives the solution?

The answers reveal the true performance of the patient system.

Find the constraint

Theory of Constraints teaches that the performance of any system is limited by a constraint. Improving a part of the system that is not constraining flow may create more activity without increasing results.

If diagnostic capacity is the constraint, generating more awareness may simply produce a longer queue for diagnosis. If specialist capacity is the constraint, accelerating authorization may move patients more quickly into another wait. If training after first use is inadequate, increasing procedures may produce poor experiences and avoidable follow-up demand.

“More activity at a non-constraint creates work in process. More capability at the constraint improves the system.”

The constraint is not always a physical resource. It may be a policy, an eligibility rule, missing evidence, a fragmented handover, an information delay or the cognitive burden placed on the patient.

The most important question is therefore not, “How do we improve every step?”

It is, “What currently limits the flow of suitable patients to successful use of the therapy?”

Understand why patients remain in or leave the flow

Numbers show where patients are lost. Patient research helps explain why.

Two patients with the same diagnosis may respond very differently. One may actively seek new treatment options. Another may delay action until symptoms become severe. A third may want help but lack confidence in navigating the healthcare system.

Meaningful patient segmentation considers characteristics that influence behavior:

  • The importance the person gives their health
  • Their confidence in dealing with healthcare professionals
  • Whether they act independently or need encouragement
  • Their comfort with technology
  • The pressures of work, family and daily life
  • Their ability to understand and act on clinical information
  • Their willingness and ability to pay
  • The outcomes they most want to achieve

These differences affect whether patients enter the pathway, remain engaged and successfully adopt the solution.

Go to the patient’s Gemba

The Gemba is the place where work actually happens. For patients, this includes the home, clinic, hospital and all the places where they manage their condition between formal encounters.

Interviews alone may miss important evidence. People normalize inconvenience, forget workarounds and simplify their past decisions. Observation allows the development team to see what patients actually do.

Good research combines three activities.

Observe. Watch how patients obtain information, prepare, use the solution and respond when something goes wrong.

Immerse. Understand the physical, emotional and practical conditions surrounding the experience.

Engage. Ask open questions that allow patients to describe their goals, fears and frustrations in their own language.

The purpose is to discover the patient’s reality before asking them to evaluate the organization’s preferred answer.

Understand the patient’s job to be done

Patients rarely want a medical device for its own sake. They want the progress it may enable.

They may want to recognize deterioration earlier, preserve independence, reduce pain, avoid repeated visits, return to work or prevent a disease from controlling daily life.

A useful job map examines eight recurring stages:

  1. Define what must be achieved.
  2. Locate the required information and resources.
  3. Prepare for the activity.
  4. Confirm readiness and choose between alternatives.
  5. Execute the activity.
  6. Monitor whether it is working.
  7. Modify the approach when circumstances change.
  8. Conclude or prepare for what follows.

This reveals opportunities beyond the immediate use of the device. The most valuable improvement may involve helping patients prepare, confirm readiness, recognize an exception or understand what happens next.

Turn patient experiences into evidence

Stories create understanding, but investment decisions require structured evidence.

Patient observations and comments should be converted into outcome statements that identify:

  • The desired direction of improvement
  • A measure of success
  • The object being controlled
  • The circumstances in which it matters

For example:

“Minimize the time required to recognize that my condition has changed sufficiently to require clinical help.”

Patients can then assess the importance of each outcome and their satisfaction with their current ability to achieve it.

Highly important and poorly satisfied outcomes represent genuine opportunities. This prevents teams from prioritizing attractive features that do not materially improve the patient’s life or progress through the pathway.

“Innovation becomes valuable when it improves an outcome that matters and remains poorly served.”

Apply the five-step FOCUS process

The Patient Centered Design pathway can be improved through a repeating discipline:

Find the constraint. Identify what currently limits patient flow or successful use.

Optimise for it. Make the best possible use of existing constraint capacity.

Collaborate around it. Align functions and partners so their actions support the constraint.

Uplift it. Add capability, remove restrictive policies or redesign the pathway.

Start Again. Once the constraint moves, identify and address the next limiting factor.

This prevents improvement from becoming a collection of disconnected initiatives. It directs scarce resources toward the factor that most strongly governs the result.

Patient Centered Design is an operating system

Patient insight should influence more than early product design. It should shape clinical evidence, regulatory strategy, reimbursement, manufacturing, education, market development and post-market support.

The organization should be able to show:

  • Which patients it intends to serve
  • What those patients are trying to accomplish
  • How the complete patient pathway operates
  • Where patients wait or leave the flow
  • Which outcomes remain poorly served
  • What currently constrains successful patient access
  • How the proposed solution improves the whole system

The goal is not simply to place the patient at the center of a diagram. It is to organize the enterprise around delivering better products faster, so that more lives can be changed for good.


What’s next?

Use the Patient Centered Design assessment to determine how well your organization understands its patient journeys, priority outcomes and constraints to patient flow.

The result should be more than another collection of patient opinions. It should provide evidence that directs strategy, investment and execution toward the changes that matter most.

READ MORE

More than just work

Discover better ways to do better work.

Fresh insights, every Friday

We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.

We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    Subscribe to 'Perspectives'

    [recaptcha id:cf7note]

    More Than Just Work
    Weekly productivity insights

    Subscribe
    • EnsembleConsultingGroup
    • Share Page
    • +61 2 9387 3955
    • info@EnsembleConsultingGroup.com

    Site proudly designed by Brand Fibre

    What is to get in touch with you?



    More than just work

    Discover better ways to do better work.

    Fresh insights, every Friday

    We alternate our own actionable articles with three relevant links from other authorities.


    We’ll only use your email address for this newsletter. No sales calls

    white_arrow white_bidirection_arrow arrow-right-green arrow-right-orange arrow-right arrow-left blue_arrow blue_round_arrow tick

    Want us to get in touch with you?

     
    Thank you for your interest. We will call you back.